I wondered about the joining of the 8 separate reviews. It sounded like they were separate reviews (real or fake) and not the same person making 8 duplicate reviews. However I think his argument was that the 8 reviews together hurt his overall image that cost a job totalling $165k plus an additional made up number of $1m in butthurt I mean reputation damage. As such, he wants all parties found responsible to be jointly and severally liable for the total award, not 8 * (165k + 1m) total.
Does freedom of speech automatically grant the ability to defame someone? We have one filing hearing one side of the case. Not enough information is available to decide the merits of the case.
Some of the reviews appear to be opinions so not defamation. Some of the reviews make statements that may be false which could be defamation. If the reviews are based mostly on fact sprinkled with the typical amount of hyperbole for a review site, it does look like the contractor has a case of the butt hurts.
...he expected the price of bitcoin to rise to between $610 and $1,250 if Greece exits the Euro. The currency is currently worth $250.
I know when my country is looking at economic collapse I'd look to move all my money into a currency that's going to double-quintuple in value nearly overnight. That's the stability I want and look for. Plus think of the literally 2 or 3 actual real retailer in the country that even know what a bitcoin is, let alone accept it for payments that I'll be able to spend my new found wealth
Do you really want to live in a society where the SCOTUS can hold up an election so long that the President has to stay in office illegally or resign and then the VP can assume that office via succession law until the election is all hunky dory to all parties?
Do you really want to live in a society that denies basic rights to people because they are the same gender as their significant other, and rely on their elected politicians, almost all of which are useless, corrupt, and/or completely unable to pass any meaningful legislation as they are too busy trying to screw the opposite party.
Because when you're getting laid the last thing you want to do is pull out (or be pulled out of), discovered the condom broke and is now a rainbow of colors.
Why limit it to just STDs? Or even just to diseases. How about cure all medical conditions. Should be pretty easy thing to accomplish.
If the trouble lies with the wording of one part of the law, surely Congress should amend it so it clearly reflects their intent. That's what a functional legislative body would do.
Well, since we don't have a functional legislative body, we're fucked.
At the very least shouldn't Congress act in the best interests of the people they were elected to represent?
No. They should act in the best interests of the corporations that paid them to be represented. What the best interests of the people comes secondary if they have free time and aren't in conflict with corporations.
Generally I would agree with you WRT wifi-induced illnesses. However just because something is psychosomatic doesn't mean a person is not sick. Talk with someone with a severe anxiety disorder, or PTSD. They aren't sick with a virus or an infection. There isn't any diseased or tissue physically traumatized. But they can definitely be "sick" due to their condition. I'm married to such a person that on bad days when they are triggered, such a sickness is extremely debilitating.
But in this case, Mr. Lush registered first, and because it's his own name he can't be accused of domain squatting.
Except it's not a domain registration, so there is no chance of domain squatting. It's path/URL within the YouTube.com domain. It's YouTube.com/Google property for them to use as they see fit.
I know RTFA is not something that happens often on
In a recent Ask Slashdot, the person asking the question was ridiculed by many for relying on his free ISP email account instead of his own domain hosted with a 3rd party provider to allow for portability. I think a similar argument applies here.
Why doesn't Mr. Lush have his own domain/website instead of relying on Google/YouTube to be his direct URL? Just like your ISP provided email account, it may be your account to use, but you don't own it. It's property of the ISP and is subject to their whim in use.
Yeah it sucks that something that was "his" was taken away what appears to be arbitrarily due to some algorithm. But if he is reliant on that URL perhaps he should use something that he has better control and full ownership of.
Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.
That was never Apple's goal. That was just the pie in the sky calculation the article made using extremely optimistic numbers of 1b devices. It stated that Apple's goal was eventually 100m users. I think that's plausible although the number of paying subscribers I think will be just a small fraction of that.